Yep, If the patent system actually followed the rules it wouldn't be a problem. The problem is mainly in the 'non-obvious' bit... I think that is rarely enforced. I have seen far too many obvious ideas get patented. Often there are patents for the very first thing that would come to mind if you were out to solve the same problem. Maybe the patent clerks are forgetting that it has to be non-obvious for someone competent in the field - not just some random dude off the street. That being said.. how can they possibly test for this? You would have to at least poll a panel of the submitter's peers. I don't think non-obviousness can be determined by a single person.

Actually, that is the way it's supposed to work. I don't know how often this is the case. During the internet boom, one of the biggest reasons for bogus patents IMO was that it was impossible to know who ws an expert in the field. I think this is less the case with more mature industries. Unfortunately, a few bad apples...

As I pointed out earlier, one of this biggest problems is that an idea that was non-obvious at the time of the filing, may seem like a no-brainer by the time the patent is issued. It's kinda like learning a magic trick. It seems impossible when you first see it, but once someone shows you how to do it, it couldn't be more obvious.

I agree that the legal system has largely subverted the intent of the patent process. The patent process was designed to protect the independent inventor from abuse by large corporations (this is why only individuals, not corporations, may be granted patents. Before anyone points out the obvious, yes, inventors can assign all their patent rights to a corporation, but the patent still "belongs" to the inventor). Unfortunately, the economics of filing, prosecuting and defending patent claims have made it extremely difficult for the independent inventor and much easier for the corporations to take advantage of these protections.

There's a popular misconception about patents that you can patent a concept like "one-click ordering". The reality is that you cannot patent an idea, only the methods and process by which an idea is realized, so what Amazon patented was the combination of procedures required to enable *their* one-click ordering system to work, which is obviously useful and may very well, for all I know, be novel and non-obvious. Someone else could certainly come along and enable one-click ordering using a completely different set of procedures, and not infringe upon Amazon.com's patent. However, merely implementing the same procedure in a slightly different way, still constitutes infringement if it can be demonstrated that the underlying procedure is the same.

This is not meant to be a defense of Amazon.com's patent as I know very little of what the patent actually entails, and it may be truly frivolous for all I know. My point is that while outrage over ridiculous patents makes for great media buzz, the process is (a little) more subtle and complex than most people are aware.